angelo

The above is my position as well.

Eliyahu

The confusion here could be eliminated if one distinguishes between a man for which archeological evidence has been found and the historical myth - J-eeezooooos. But I can imagine the knee jerk reaction. Most of the world thinks they are one in the same. The man Yehoshua bar Yoseph's bones were found in Talpiot, Yrushalayim (Jerusalem - sorry no J in Hebrew) Along with his brother Yaacov, and a whole bunch of other family members, maybe even his wife and son. Stay with me........not J-eeeeezoooos. Only if you can distinguish between the two can you see a Torah observant Jew whose name was covered in feces by some opportunistic pagans to morph into the idol J-eeeezooos. So they both actually exist in history. The halacha teaching Jewish, Torah observant man and then the myth some few decades later.:constern02:

aa5874

Once it was denied that Jesus of the NT had an earthly father, then you are going to have to guess that you found HJ. Once you cannot show that only one person was named Jesus, then you have to guess that you found HJ.

If HJ was just as man, it is likely that he was a lunatic based on his teaching, there was really no need to crucify a crazy-man. Based on Josephus, Jesus son of Ananus, deemed a crazy man was simply beaten to a pulp.

We may have to look for the bones of a dead man who was beaten to a pulp and not one who was crucified.

show_no_mercy

I think you need to do a search on the forums for the "James Ossuary". It's probably a forgery.

Toto

I think Eliyahu is referring to the "Jesus Dynasty (or via: amazon.co.uk)" theories of James Tabor. The James Ossuary was not found at Talpiot, although Tabor thinks that it originally belonged there, before "brother of Jesus" was added to it.

Tabor's theories are highly conjectural, and I don't know of any other scholar who endorses them.

show_no_mercy

I always get those two mixed up!

angelo

Welcome to this very great forum, but the above post is full of it. The Tabor tomb has been proven to be no evidence at all besides proving what popular names Jesus/Yeshua, James, Miriam and Joseph were.
There is not a scrap of evidence for an historical Jeebus the man anywhere, including the gospels.

Loomis

It doesn’t say specifically that the episode took place in heaven. But the setting is the same in Job 1:1-6 and Job 2:1-2. Those episodes involve the same characters: the Lord, the Angels, and the Adversary walking among them. And those episodes take place in heaven. It’s conceivable that the original author didn’t give this issue much thought. After all, it’s just a story. But the issue at hand is if the author of Hebrews was drawing from it.

Do you admit that Zechariah 3 LXX and Hebrews 4:14 both talk about a high priest named Iesoun? (Y/N)

Do you admit that these are the same name? (Y/N)

You contend that the author of Hebrews 4:14 was talking about new high priest; and not the same one as in Zechariah 3 LXX. Right? (Y/N)

Do you admit that you stand to gain an unfair advantage in this discussion by adhering to the traditional practice of pretending that these are two different names? (Y/N)

Do you admit that that’s what you’ve done? (Y/N)

Just answer honestly.

Loomis

Believers write study bibles. Deep in their hearts they remain confident that one day the Son of Man will return in the clouds. These people are untrustworthy.

And beside that, the issue isn’t necessarily what did the author of Zechariah mean?

The issue is was the author of Hebrews barrowing his Iesoun from Zechariah?

Loomis

Your source does not explain or defend its assertion that this is a Christian redaction. It just claims that it is. (It’s probably based entirely on the premise that Jesus existed and was crucified. And that’s begging the question.)

And even if it was a redaction then what difference would it make? Either way it supports the argument that Jesus is based on Joshua. Fwiw, it doesn’t have to be an allusion to a crucifixion. It could just as easily be an allusion to traditions such as Acts 5:30, 10:39, 13:29; Galatians 3:13; 1 Peter 2:24, and Sanhedrin 43a, where the Iesoun is executed and hung from a tree according to the laws in Deuteronomy 21:22-23.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCHindley The original passage refers to a messiah who is essentially Jushua son of Nun come back to life (Joshua 10:12-13).

Right. So here we have another resurrected Iesoun. And the motifs of stretching out the hands and making the son stand still can also be found in Sirach 46:1-4. 150 BC.

Iesoun son of Nun was mighty in war,
and was the successor of Moses in prophecies.
He became, as his name implies,
a great saviour of God’s elect,
to take vengeance on the enemies that rose against them,
so that he might give Israel its inheritance.
How glorious he was when he stretched out his hands
and brandished his sword against the cities!
Who before him ever stood so firm?
For he waged the wars of the Lord.
Was it not through him that the sun stood still
and one day became as long as two?

Now look at Hebrews 3:3

For he has come to deserve greater glory than Moses

The same motif (successor of Moses) that was attributed to Jushua son of Nun back in Sirach 46 (who just happens to be a resurrected messiah with the same name) is now attributed to “Jesus”.

Doesn’t all this seem a little to weird to be a coincidence?